Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of A Public Servant Who Was Accused Of Accepting A Bribe Of ₹1500

While observing that the prosecution evidence lacks proof beyond doubt and suffers material contradiction, and hence the conviction on presumption has to be set aside, the Madras High Court has allowed the appeal filed by a public servant, a Village Administrative Officer in Tamil Nadu’s Krishnagiri District, who was found guilty of demanding and accepting Rs.1500/- as illegal gratification for recommending patta transfer and survey of land and building.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran observed that “The contradiction with P.W.2 Tr. R. Annamalai regarding recovery of tainted money creates doubt about the case of the prosecution which gets enhanced by the fact that the accused had already rejected the application of the defacto complainant two months earlier and the file was not with him for any consideration. Also, the accused has probablised his defence of fixing him in this case by suggesting that the defacto complainant had ill-motive against him for not giving conduct certificate and also rejecting his application for grant of patta”.

Senior Advocate R. John Sathyan appeared for the Appellant, whereas Government Advocate S. Udaya Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

In this case, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which had to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 1 month for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and to undergo one-year R.I and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which had to undergo SO for 6 months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The substantive sentences for both offences were ordered to run concurrently. The Prosecution Witness stated that the accused had repeatedly demanded a bribe and after the complaint, during the trap proceedings on Oct 06, 2005, when he went to the office of the accused, they were few more persons in the office. The accused asked others to go out and received the money from him. The third prosecution witness was the shadow witness who was sent by Trap Laying Officer to oversee the transaction.

After considering the submission, the High Court noted that it was an admitted fact that the defacto complainant did not inform him that, his application for transfer of patta was rejected on Aug 08, 2005.

“The Trap Laying Officer had deposed that, for getting the assistance of P.W.3 Murugan, he had made a written request to Ex. Engineer, Highways Department to spare an Officer to assist the Trap. There is no such letter marked, to prove that, PW3 was present in the Vigilance Office on the written request by the Trap Laying Officer. To believe that, he was present at the time of the trap and had seen the accused demanding bribe and receipt of bribe money, no evidence except the oral evidence of the Trap Laying Officer PW11”, added the Court.

The Bench elaborated that contrarily the documentary evidence indicated that the accused had rejected the request of the complainant for a grant of patta and the file was not with him.

Therefore, the Bench clarified that the alleged demand was unbelievable, since on that day, the accused had no control over the file or decision since he had already rejected it and returned it to Taluk Office.

The Bench stated that the hastiness of the Trap Laying Officer registering the complaint and proceeding with the trap had to be taken note of.

Whether before registering the complaint, the Trap Laying Officer had made any preliminary enquiry about the credential of the complainant as well as the accused was not brought forth, observed the Bench.

In view thereof, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Jayaram v. State

Click here to read/download the Judgment